Perhaps the magazine you refer to should add something like this to each review: "Note, although we've written this CD player presents voices brilliantly, revealing every subtlety and small inflection.

Anyone on WHFSV who wrote a sentence that bad, hanging and with no resolution whatsoever, would be given a stern talking-to by our leather-clad (well, occasionally), Stasi-like production desk team. And get a stern tutting from me.

I guess they wouldn't criticise somebody who starts sentences with a conjunction or uses words which don't exist in the English language?

Chris

PS An "ad hominem" argument is one which attack the opponent rather than the opponent's argument, generally because of an inability to counter the argument.

Perhaps the magazine you refer to should add something like this to each review: "Note, although we've written this CD player presents voices brilliantly, revealing every subtlety and small inflection.

Anyone on WHFSV who wrote a sentence that bad, hanging and with no resolution whatsoever, would be given a stern talking-to by our leather-clad (well, occasionally), Stasi-like production desk team. And get a stern tutting from me.

I guess they wouldn't criticise somebody who starts sentences with a conjunction or uses words which don't exist in the English language?

Chris

PS An "ad hominem" argument is one which attack the opponent rather than the opponent's argument, generally because of an inability to counter the argument.

Paul's opinion is his and he's allowed to have it. I don't think many would agree with him. the 50mm 1.4 is a much better lens.

Chris

Huh? Did you even read what I wrote? Much better than what? I didn't compare it to anything for starters.

Paul Hobbs wrote:

I think in Photography there is a lot more balancing of compromise than in Hifi, because the measures are much more tangible. You know that with your 50mm 1.4, if you shoot wide open its going to be a bit soft and dark in the corners, but that is ok as the super soft DoF pays off the compromise.

This is all I said about the 1.4. Which I have owned, twice, and love.

To back up my point, Here is a chart with vignetting for the 50mm f1.4, 2.7 stops at f1.4. That is a lot darker in the corners.

Here is an MTF chart showing lack of resolution in the corners wide open:

Very poor in the corners. (all charts from here: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/564-canon50f14ff?start=1)

But the point I was making, is that this is the compromise you pay for the lovely DoF. Its a price I have paid willingly. Even though it tests so badly, it takes lovely images like this:

I think people are missing the point here. There's a reason why What Hi-Fi is the largest selling magazine in its class, no mean feat in an environment where some have shut shop. Why will it change the winning formula? Remember what happened to coke when they tried to change their formula?

Paul's opinion is his and he's allowed to have it. I don't think many would agree with him. the 50mm 1.4 is a much better lens.

Chris

Huh? Did you even read what I wrote? Much better than what? I didn't compare it to anything for starters.

Paul Hobbs wrote:

I think in Photography there is a lot more balancing of compromise than in Hifi, because the measures are much more tangible. You know that with your 50mm 1.4, if you shoot wide open its going to be a bit soft and dark in the corners, but that is ok as the super soft DoF pays off the compromise.

This is all I said about the 1.4. Which I have owned, twice, and love.

To back up my point, Here is a chart with vignetting for the 50mm f1.4, 2.7 stops at f1.4. That is a lot darker in the corners.

Here is an MTF chart showing lack of resolution in the corners wide open:

Very poor in the corners. (all charts from here: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/564-canon50f14ff?start=1)

But the point I was making, is that this is the compromise you pay for the lovely DoF. Its a price I have paid willingly. Even though it tests so badly, it takes lovely images like this:

...whilst using a number of ad hominem arguments against journalists in a 'they would say that wouldn't they' sort of way. Yes, I liked that one. I am stealing 'lolocaust' for future use.

Actually I don't think I did. The point was about the credibility of WHiFi "experts" to judge equipment and I don't think I said they were bad people or dishonest or indeed anything like that. I did question Andrew's assertion that because they do a lot of it that makes them good at it, which is palpably not a sensible argument. I did put in a throwaway line about journalists but that surely isn't a pejorative term, although it obviously touched a nerve. You'd have thought I called them bankers (or whoever the current hate figures are).

The more I think about it the stronger is the analogy with "Top Gear". There is obviously a market for subjective reviews of things and WHiFi seems to be filling that niche. I guess that's fine but I remain concerned that some people might be spending large amounts of money on items which don't actually do anything on the basis of purely subjective opinions. Caveat emptor maybe?